This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#47132 by Andragon
Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:33 pm
Different people, different tastes. I don't oppose, but I beg to differ.
I dunno. I loved Appetite For Destruction minus Sweet Child (yep too much hype bout it while it's just good, not AMAZING).
"Welcome to the Jungle" is one of my all-time favorite in-your-face rock-n-roll songs. So, yea I liked what they did. Paradise City and November Rain were great too, but that's because of three other main guys: Slash, Duff and Izzy.. and ofcourse 2 other guitarists :P , but you get the point.

The new style is too industrial and it sounds like something a producer whipped up in a day or two not 15 years.
Having said that, I haven't listened to the WHOLE album yet. I heard bout 4 of em. So, I'll let you know if I hear something worthy :shock:

#47188 by Hayden King
Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:56 pm
I think they just came along with the right music (good ole rebellious R&R) at the right time. I liked their songs, but never considered em all that good.
plus my cousins still beat me to death with em every time I go visit em. I haven't even listened to the new album because I like music that evolves ie; Zepp / Floyd / Nirvana and I just don't see that happening with those guys..
I've had more than enough of the AC/DC syndrome..........
just my taste and opinion

#47191 by fisherman bob
Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:05 pm
I've never been a fan of G & R. I've heard a little of the new release. Nothing impressive there. I don't like Axl's vocals much, Slash is mechanically an excellent guitarist, but not really a very emotonal lead player. A big part of their success was their image and constantly getting publicity (good or bad). Their music alone didn't make them famous IMO. I never have bought any G & R recordings. Later...

#47198 by Andragon
Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:27 pm
Oh cmon, Fisherman, Slash is a very emotional guitarist. I agree that sometimes he lets the technical side of him override, but have you listened to his outro solos on, say, November Rain or so?
He makes that axe cry :?

#47254 by neanderpaul
Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:03 pm
I agree with andragon. Slash is def. emotional. I don't think technical comes into the process for him. BTW Slash is not on the new material IIRC. See G&r is another band band that SHOULD be in my embarrassing list in the other thread. But I'm just not embarrassed of anything I like. His vocals sound stronger on this material than his old stuff. This album just feels fresh and innovative especially for a rocker like Axl.

#47276 by fisherman bob
Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:07 am
Everyone has a different interpretation on music. That's why there's so many different bands, genres, solo artists, etc. What trips your trigger may not necessarily trip mine. That's what makes the musical world go round. Slash doesn't do it for me, but there's obviously millions of his fans that disagree with me. I can't argue with them. Slash has made beaucoup bucks (hopefully) doing something most other musicians could
only dream about. More power to him.

#47337 by thesystemhasfailed
Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:39 am
i grew up with 2 parents that listened to em and i never liked em. frankly they're just another part of the same old cheesy 80's rock crap that everyone seemed to like back in the day as well as sell-out fascist glam rockin posers hence, one in a million and their cover of charles manson's look @ ur game girl.

#47354 by neanderpaul
Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:19 pm
Dr. Anubis Blackward wrote:i grew up with 2 parents that listened to em and i never liked em. frankly they're just another part of the same old cheesy 80's rock crap that everyone seemed to like back in the day as well as sell-out fascist glam rockin posers hence, one in a million and their cover of charles manson's look @ ur game girl.


Nope. I lived it. What made a band part of the "problem" is hairspray and make up like poison and warrant) , girlie unison fullband backing vox (like Def Lepard) , really bad glam lyrics (like firehouse) and no testosterone. GnR came towards the end and they were real. They had an edge of man and credibilty like some 70's classic rockers. Plus the musicianship in the whole band was exemplary. They just don't fit the mold of the cheese factory that was 80's glam metal or pop metal.

The reason I like the new stuff is the melodies and music and because it's such a surprise. If it sounded like the old stuff I would dismiss it and their old fans would be all over it. I'm not surprised that I'm in the minority on liking it. I won't be surprised if it does nothing.

#47370 by Kramerguy
Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:28 pm
Dr. Anubis Blackward wrote:they're just another part of the same old cheesy 80's rock crap that everyone seemed to like back in the day as well as sell-out fascist glam rockin posers hence, one in a million and their cover of charles manson's look @ ur game girl.


That's pretty harsh.

On top of what NP already said, I have to interject a few points on this as well.

You remember Nirvana? Pearl Jam, Soundgarden? All wearing ripped up jeans, flannel shirts, etc...

Yeah, so the major labels took metal and put some hairspray and spandex on it to make it more sell-able. It happens. Not every hair band was awful. For every "Firehouse", there was a "Megadeth". NEW(er) bands couldn't get signed unless they had "the look"... Kinda like the 90's when you couldn't get signed unless you wore a flannel shirt :idea: .

This is a CONSTANT cycle of events in music that has been happening since rock was born. Ultimately Rock & Fashion are the same thing, always have been, always will be. You don't see a band dressed like leprechauns at a hardcore punk festival, and you don't see a goth band dressed in pastels and singing about happy stuff. You won't see a christian rock band dressed like Gwar either. Each and every genre of music sells out, and we all sell out with it. Even the act of not selling out requires you to conform to a specified fashion (Nirvana...).

I just found out recently that the guitarists for both Winger and Europe are actually some of the most amazing players ever. They were unfortunately caught up in the hiarband hatred (and frankly, the music was pretty crappy from some of the hairbands...). My point is that there were some GREAT bands and musicians out of the 80's, and G&R was actually the nirvana before Nirvana... A dirtyier 70's style hard rock band at a time when everyone was wearing spandex and singing 3 octaves too high.

Look back to the 50's when rock bands performed in suits or tuxedo's.. What happened? Oh yeah, that whole 'breaking away from the image' and then there were hippies....

It's a cycle, and in every decade, in every genre, there's buttloads of great music.

The only thing facist about the 80's was tipper gore!

#47430 by fisherman bob
Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:20 am
That's why I never made it big in music, because I never had "the look." I can't show off my belly button so they can't put me on MTV. I can't synchronize my moves, hell I can't even walk and chew gum at the same time. I can't dance like Ricky Martin, but even if I could it probably wouldn't do me any good. All I CAN do is play and sing my ass off and get lucky enough to play for people once in a while. And that's good enough for me. And if I don't gig I fish. Fishing is for people who don't work. Later...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest